Message-Id: <199602031720.LAA28205@sierra.zyzzyva.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: How about mixing BindAddress and VirtualHost??? 
In-reply-to: sanders's message of Fri, 02 Feb 1996 23:07:01 -0600.
         <199602030507.XAA22996@austin.bsdi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 11:20:51 -0600
From: Randy Terbush <randy@zyzzyva.com>
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

> Cliff Skolnick writes:
> > Well, BindAddress was ment for people that wanted a different 
> > sever/servers running for addresses.  They could be different UID and 
> > stuff that virtual host directives can't provide.
> 
> I understand how and why Apache got into the current situation,
> but the fact remains that if you want six VirtualHosts on one uid
> and another six on another uid then you'll have to run seven server
> instances instead of two.

Ideally, specifying uid/gid for the VirtualHost would be the best
solution IMO. One lead parent process forking children under specified
UID. This would solve the SetUID debate. This would also have the added
side effect of allowing CPU usage accounting on a per UID basis.